Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sweitzer
156 A.3d 134
| Md. | 2017Background
- Philip J. Sweitzer, admitted to the Maryland Bar in 2005, was indicted and convicted (bench trial) of felony theft for misappropriating client Dr. Allen Tsai’s funds (Nu Image settlement payment and Penn Mutual settlement proceeds). Trial court sentenced Sweitzer to one year incarceration (four years suspended) and ordered $57,000 restitution.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the conviction; the Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari, making the conviction final.
- Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action under Maryland Rules permitting discipline based on a final conviction of a "serious crime." The Court of Appeals suspended Sweitzer pending the disciplinary proceeding.
- A designated circuit judge conducted an evidentiary hearing; Sweitzer did not attend and presented no mitigating evidence. The hearing judge found the conviction and record established violations of MLRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d).
- Sweitzer filed numerous exceptions attacking the criminal proceedings and jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals overruled them, held that a final criminal conviction is conclusive evidence in disciplinary proceedings under Md. Rule 16-771(g), and that he violated the cited MLRPC provisions.
- Because the misconduct involved intentional theft and deceit of client funds and no mitigating evidence was offered, the Court ordered disbarment (per curiam order), and denied Sweitzer’s later motions for reconsideration and disqualification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sweitzer’s felony theft conviction supports professional misconduct charges under MLRPC 8.4(b) (criminal act reflecting on honesty/fitness) | Bar Counsel: Final felony conviction (theft of client funds) is conclusive evidence and establishes an 8.4(b) violation | Sweitzer: Challenges conviction integrity and asserts jurisdictional defects; argues he earned fees and conviction is void | Held: Conviction is final and establishes an 8.4(b) violation (reflects on honesty/trustworthiness) |
| Whether Sweitzer’s conduct violated MLRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit) | Bar Counsel: Evidence shows lies, misrepresentations, and intent to deprive client of funds | Sweitzer: Denies wrongdoing; attacks criminal process and factual findings | Held: Record shows copious evidence of deceit and intent to deprive client; 8.4(c) violated |
| Whether Sweitzer’s conduct violated MLRPC 8.4(d) (prejudicial to administration of justice) | Bar Counsel: Misappropriation of client funds and deceit undermines public confidence in the profession | Sweitzer: Argues disciplinary process improperly relied on criminal proceedings and denies professional prejudice | Held: Theft and deceit erode public confidence and are prejudicial to administration of justice; 8.4(d) violated |
| Appropriate sanction for misconduct (disbarment vs. lesser discipline) | Bar Counsel: Disbarment is appropriate given intentional dishonesty, theft of client funds, and lack of mitigation | Sweitzer: Sought dismissal, challenged procedures, offered no mitigating evidence at hearing | Held: Disbarment imposed; intentional misappropriation and deceit ordinarily warrant disbarment absent compelling mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602 (Md. 2013) (Court’s jurisdiction in attorney discipline proceedings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kwarteng, 411 Md. 652 (Md. 2009) (treatment of hearing judge’s findings when no exceptions filed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mahone, 435 Md. 84 (Md. 2013) (standard for overruling hearing judge’s findings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507 (Md. 2009) (de novo review of hearing judge’s conclusions of law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15 (Md. 2012) (clear-and-convincing standard in disciplinary review)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Eckel, 443 Md. 75 (Md. 2015) (serious crime conviction supports MLRPC 8.4(b) discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nusbaum, 436 Md. 609 (Md. 2014) (intentional dishonest conduct and disbarment principles)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jarosinski, 411 Md. 432 (Md. 2009) (theft of client funds reflects poorly on honesty/trustworthiness)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gisriel, 409 Md. 331 (Md. 2009) (misappropriation of client funds violates 8.4(c) and 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Levin, 438 Md. 211 (Md. 2014) (sanctioning analysis; disbarment for dishonest conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 441 Md. 23 (Md. 2014) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice standard)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136 (Md. 2014) (misappropriation plus false statements supporting 8.4(d) violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Carithers, 421 Md. 28 (Md. 2011) (intentional misappropriation of client funds ordinarily warrants disbarment)